Minimal Intervention of Patient Education for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Luís A Gomes, Ana M Rodrigues, Daniëlle van der Windt, Diogo Pires, Vera Afreixo, Helena Canhão, Eduardo B Cruz
{"title":"Minimal Intervention of Patient Education for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.","authors":"Luís A Gomes, Ana M Rodrigues, Daniëlle van der Windt, Diogo Pires, Vera Afreixo, Helena Canhão, Eduardo B Cruz","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2023.11865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To explore the effects of minimal intervention of patient education (MIPE) for reducing disability and pain intensity in patients with low back pain (LBP). <b>DESIGN:</b> Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> Trials comparing MIPE, consisting of a single session of patient education, to no or other interventions in patients with LBP. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> Random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible. A noninferiority margin of 5 points (0-100 scale) was considered for noninferiority hypotheses. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. <b>RESULTS:</b> A total of 21 trials were included. There were no differences between MIPE and no intervention for effects on disability and pain intensity. There was low-certainty evidence that MIPE had inferior effects on short-term disability (mean difference = 3.62; 95% CI: 0.85, 6.38; 15 trials; n = 3066; I<sup>2</sup> = 75%) and pain intensity (mean difference = 9.43; 95% CI: 1.31, 17.56; 10 trials; n = 1394; I<sup>2</sup> = 90%) than other interventions. No differences were found for subsequent time points. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> As an intervention delivered in isolation, and without tailoring (ie, one-size-fits-all intervention), MIPE on average did not provide benefits for reducing disability and pain intensity over no or other interventions. We encourage clinicians to consider using additional/other or more tailored treatments when helping people manage LBP. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-13. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11865</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"107-119"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.11865","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of minimal intervention of patient education (MIPE) for reducing disability and pain intensity in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing MIPE, consisting of a single session of patient education, to no or other interventions in patients with LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible. A noninferiority margin of 5 points (0-100 scale) was considered for noninferiority hypotheses. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: A total of 21 trials were included. There were no differences between MIPE and no intervention for effects on disability and pain intensity. There was low-certainty evidence that MIPE had inferior effects on short-term disability (mean difference = 3.62; 95% CI: 0.85, 6.38; 15 trials; n = 3066; I2 = 75%) and pain intensity (mean difference = 9.43; 95% CI: 1.31, 17.56; 10 trials; n = 1394; I2 = 90%) than other interventions. No differences were found for subsequent time points. CONCLUSION: As an intervention delivered in isolation, and without tailoring (ie, one-size-fits-all intervention), MIPE on average did not provide benefits for reducing disability and pain intensity over no or other interventions. We encourage clinicians to consider using additional/other or more tailored treatments when helping people manage LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-13. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11865.

腰痛患者教育的最小干预:一项荟萃分析的系统综述。
目的:探讨患者教育最小干预(MIPE)对减轻腰痛(LBP)患者残疾和疼痛强度的影响。设计:干预系统评价,随机对照试验荟萃分析。文献检索:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、CINAHL和PsycINFO数据库,检索时间从成立到2023年5月。研究选择标准:对LBP患者进行MIPE(包括单次患者教育)与不进行干预或其他干预的比较试验。资料综合:尽可能进行随机效应荟萃分析。对于非劣效性假设,考虑5分(0-100分)的非劣效性裕度。我们使用修订后的Cochrane风险-偏倚工具(RoB2)评估偏倚风险,并使用建议分级评估、发展评估(GRADE)框架评估证据的确定性。结果:共纳入21项试验。MIPE之间没有差异,对残疾和疼痛强度没有影响。低确定性证据表明,MIPE对短期残疾(平均差值为3.62 [95%CI 0.85, 6.38], 15项试验,n=3 066, 2=75%)和疼痛强度(平均差值为9.43 [95%CI 1.31, 17.56], 10项试验,n=1 394;I2=90%)。随后的时间点没有发现差异。结论:作为一种孤立的、没有剪裁的干预措施(即,一刀切的干预措施),平均而言,MIPE在减少残疾和疼痛强度方面没有比没有或其他干预措施更好的效果。我们鼓励临床医生在帮助患者控制腰痛时考虑使用额外/其他或更有针对性的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信